Best Of
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
Just a thought about this in the Tank/Cleric Paladin class. Is it not true that Paladins as generally portrayed in fantasy more closely related to what Templar is
The Templar's of the Crusades in our human history were holy warriors, through divine influence were the protectors and slayers of the wicked
So maybe in Ashes it is simple enough to say if you want the classic Paladin as stereotyped in fantasy, you may want to start with Cleric Archetype and spec into Fighter as your secondary.
Yea, you don't get to call your class Paladin in Ashes because you are a Templar. But perhaps you get you fantasy class playstyle there.
The mirrored archetype combinations are the one that I struggle with the most in terms of conceptualizing them because it is not entirely obvious what the distinction between a Cleric who dabbles in Fighter and a Fighter who dabbles in Cleric should be. In traditional multi-class systems FIGHTER/CLERIC and CLERIC/FIGHTER would be the same thing.
However in an Augment system like Intrepid has described they would be distinct because FIGHTER/CLERIC would have the FIGHTER toolkit with Cleric themed augments and CLERIC/FIGHTER would have the CLERIC toolkit with fighter themed augments. So in the specific instance of mirrored archetypes I actually think the augment system has a lot to offer.
Rippley
1
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
I don't really know what that means. Especially since they will be designing how Augmented Active Skills feel based on the Class labels they have designed.If they scrapped all the names for the sub-types and then implemented the augment system and then chose names for the subclasses based on how the combos actually feel in game, would you support that?
Dygz
2
Re: Another Approach to Handling Subclasses' "Flavor" Problem
This sort of change from Intrepid is why we're all mostly agreeing with your basis for concern, even if not your conclusion.
Anyway, no, Augmentation seems to be just 'all at once' if you wish it, with level limits (ugh!) on when and how you can augment SPECIFIC skills... maybe.
Though, to be fair, I don't really want the Throne and Liberty version (earn Augment points when you level, spend them on individual skills as you go) in Ashes either. I believe that if we have to wait until level 25 to Augment, I would want them all at once so I can embody my class fantasy immediately.
(for clarity, I disagree with waiting until level 25 to start secondary Archetype Augmenting).
The base Archetype trees are supposed to get bigger. Probably.
Lots of unknowns (which you clearly acknowlege) in that reply. If we could dig a little deeper with an example. Lets take your Scion Archer/Mage.
Upon picking that Mage secondary do you get presented with 4 choices of Arcane, Fire, Ice, Lighting and can then 'unlock' only one to be active at a time with the option to switch between them later?
Upon picking the say the Ice option do you then open a tree with individual nodes which modify a specific skill, for eample a Node which will modify the skill Headshot to now proc off hitting a Frozen target.
Do thse nodes require any secondary selection by the player and if so what is the limiting factor? Hypothetically I guess you could be grouped in horizontal tiers which leveling (every 5 levles?) unlocks and your limited to one per tier being active (so 10 nodes in 5 binary pairs). But I would find this to be REALLY inefficient as they have to design a lot more possible effects then any player is going to experience at any one time.
Whats the evidence for base archetype trees being expanded in the future? Is it just a need you percive? I find this very unlikely (though not impossible) as we are shown what look like 'ultimate' moves already at the tops of the trees and the Dev team seems to declare an archetype tree 'done' at a ~35 nodes and then promptly works on the next archetype, that seems very unlike the work patern of folks who are going to come back for a second expansion (well not untill the expansion pack ). I could see the tree widening with more optional passives on the sides but that's about it, not new active skills.
Oh, I have totally different perceptions of that whole thing.
Back when the original quote was given, it got entered into the wiki as if the four Mage augment schools were:
Teleportation, Fire, Ice, Lightning.
I thought this was so utterly ridiculous as an option set that I didn't even take it seriously (I still don't, and really hope that's not what is happening).
Otherwise, I would assume it just works like Throne and Liberty but with more restriction, so I would open my skilltree, click on 'Snipe' and get the options (in my mind it's Time/Space, Mana Flow control, Range control which would make stuff AoE, and Elemental - which actually would split up into multiple elements, not all of which would be available for every ability).
As for designing all the abilities, for me it's a graph with axes representing damage and frequency, and a z-axis that I use sometimes that measures disruptability, creating a bounding box or sphere which I can tune abilities into or out of.
If a mid level ability is too close to the edge of the box/sphere that all the others fit into, it gets extra attention. Stuff like that. I think I just view this differently than most people for various reasons.
Azherae
1
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
I feel you are not understanding the point of the system, or just wanting something very different from what they are doing (Hence u ignored my post about the unique elements of it, and u have not read the augment wiki in detail for the bit of information that is on there)
If you are looking for all classes to feel unique with all their skills, that is not the point of augments.
For the umpteenth time I completely understand how the proposed Augment System is intended to work. I have read the wiki, I have seen the quotes. I get it.
What I am suggesting is that RIGHT NOW, before they start actually implementing the Augment System might in fact be a good time to seek feedback from the community about what they want out of the Archetype system. If the majority of the community wants their archetype sub classes to feel unique and flavorful it would be pretty stupid to implement a system that does not set out to accomplish that goal.
And I'm not even saying that they cannot create unique and flavorful sub-classes using the Augment System as described. I think they absolutely can. But the only way they can do that is if they hear from the community about what their expectations are for each of these subclasses. Theme and flavor should always inform design and players should always be given as much agency in character creation as possible.
So I ask you to put aside everything that you THINK you know about the augment system and instead focus on the actual subclasses themselves. What is a HIGHSWORD to you? What is a TEMPLAR? When you hear those names what do you picture in your mind? How do they fight? How do they move? How is a HIGHSWORD different than a TEMPLAR? Imagine all the ways that the TEMPLAR and the HIGHSWORD are the same and imagine all the ways they are different.
Now imagine ways that you could represent those two ideas mechanically in game and MAKE SURE that whatever system you do end up implementing captures the essence of those two distinct classes. That is it, that is literally the extent of what I am advocating for and I know that I am far from the only one who feels this way about it. When I make suggestions that fall outside of the scope of "the augment system" (like adding a unique passive for each subclass) I am not advocating for a wholesale scrapping of augments I am simply pointing out that there is plenty of unused design space that could be used to enhance the flavor and unique gameplay styles of each class.
At this point im convinced you are looking for something else, i have no reason to think what i want from the sub class. What we need to understand is the main augment paths from the different classes and understanding how those augments can effect other classes.
So if cleric augments are life, death, etc. I'd be thinking how life and death can effect my skills on a warrior and the level of change to them.
You need to get your head out of looking at these combinations and what they do and thinking more so on what augments do and how they will effect skills. As that is the core of the system. Its not about ho templar and highsword are different, its about how are the AUGMENT options different from one another and their influence on skills.
Communities expectations for subclasses don't matter, their feedback is what is important for how it plays, feels, etc when IS implements the system. The community is not the one designing the game... I have no clue where you are getting this angle devs need to do what the community expects. The point of their feedback is they design their game and show it to the community for feedback, not ask the community what they expect and to make that thing.
These 2 things are making you so far off the mark...
Let me try approaching this from another angle.
If they scrapped all the names for the sub-types and then implemented the augment system and then chose names for the subclasses based on how the combos actually feel in game, would you support that?
Rippley
2
Re: Is no one else disappointed that "Persistent Alpha" AKA 24/7 Alpha 2 access isn't until May 2025?
patrick68794 wrote: »Final word on this since you seem incapable of grasping a very simple concept. It all boils down to this:I'm not sure what this is intended to mean.patrick68794 wrote: »It's the same in software development in general, to an extent. At some point you have to stop missing every single date you provide to your customers and deliver something. Eventually delays point to a deeper issue than just "it's development, this is to be expected" and the customer(s) have every right to be upset. Game development is ultimately no different.
Game development schedules will always have delays. "Customers" being upset is not going to change that.
Not having a delay should be treated like a very rare "miracle".
In the most recent case, Ashes appears to be set to deliver something.
A2 Spot Testing has begun in Q3. A2 Testing apparently will be delayed by about one month. And that's pretty could for a target date that was given 6 months in advance.Who claimed that Intrepid has the best communication??patrick68794 wrote: »In regards to communication my issue is that they're not communicating more often or more transparently than other crowdfunded devs, despite trying to say they are. CIG as the most prominent example is better at communication, both in terms of frequency and transparency. Other studios like Frontier, Skymill (the developers for Kindred Fates), Once Lost Games (developers for Wayward Realms), and Novaquark (the developer for Dual Universe) provide communication at least on par with and even beyond what Intrepid has been providing. Even some of the people that are purposely misconstruing what I've said in what appears to be an attempt to defend Intrepid (when they don't need defending and have even said they don't want people doing this) have admitted to poor communication on Intrepid's part.I guess that's an indication that your communication isn't very clear??patrick68794 wrote: »Regardless, I've said my piece here and am done talking about this. People are going to just continue misinterpreting what I've said, probably intentionally, and saying that I'm saying things that I haven't because I'm providing a different viewpoint that upsets them.
People that have paid are allowed to be upset at the numerous delays and the poor communication surrounding those delays. Their feedback about that is valid and Intrepid should be listening to them, even if they ultimately decide not to make any changes based on that feedback. Intrepid doesn't want people senselessly defending them or insulting other people for providing criticism either.
Now you can take whatever intentional misinterpretation of that that you want and go to town with it. If you want to think I'm upset personally then go right ahead. If you want to think that I don't know how development works go right ahead. Just know that you'll continue being wrong, just like the other people that have made the same idiotic, baseless assumptions. I'm done discussing this.
Last i checked A2 is coming out in october its not that much of a delay.
Crazy how they are being transparent giving dates though knowing with development and all those dates could get pushed back.
I'VE said it before, people can not handle an alpha development. Doesnt matter if u spend 30 minutes telling people this is alpha, etc. People still going to think early access and defy all logic and ignore the words alpha in their own mind. Most people dont understand development and will always think of it as a game being released.
Mag7spy
1
Re: Fixing the Class system
No. It's assinine to claim that Intrepid will change course to adopt your vision of what the game design should be.When I say "I Think we will get X" rather then "The design calls for X" that is me explicity saying that any discrepancy you might find with my statement and the design is me claiming that Intrepid will change course, downscope etc. Trying to pound the table with 'The design' is assinine in a thread that is all about percived flaws in or inability to deliver on the design, particularly in an acceptable timeframe, as written.
You can do what you want. I will respond the way I respond, but...
I try to stay out of threads that are just about wishes and fantasies, like the "What are your 'class fantasies' for the 64 classes" thread, since that's not a discussion about changing the current design.
But, you should expect to get quite a bit of pushback in a thread where you are pushing for changes in the Ashes game design for features that have not yet been tested.
Especially when you start a topic proclaiming to fix a feature that is not yet broken.
If you are going to start suggesting "fixes", you should at least be able to post accurate representations of the known game design.
Dygz
1